Bears Ears Public Comment Period


gs goodyear · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2016 · Points: 0

Your mind is already made up. And it is only your opinion on what state regulators would do. Oh and I like the view of drilling fields, similar to wind farms their beautiful too. 

Jaren Watson · · Boise, Idaho · Joined May 2010 · Points: 1,205
gs goodyear wrote:

We have no say in the rules that govern said federal lands. 

Um, are you a felon? If not, you might consider joining the democratic process and voting.

If the past twenty-something years of land politics in the Intermountain West hasn't provided literal mountains of evidence to persuade you of the perils of turning land over to the states, I highly doubt you'll be willing to change your mind based on a few forum comments.

By which I assume, you are a conservative so wedded to your party that you don't see the wisdom in public lands even though over three hundred million acres of public land exist precisely because it's federally managed, OR, you work for gas or mining company.

Bottom line: which is a better place to hike and climb, the east or the west? Easy answer, isn't it? If the significance of that escapes you, try this: east, mostly private and state owned. West, mostly public and federally owned. 

jason.cre · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 10

Zinke is a fucking turd.  In the report he says a variety of views were expressed during public comments, but state and federal officials from Utah opposed the designations.

What he leaves out, is the fact 96% of the comments were opposed to changing the designation.  96%!!!!!!!!   The sad truth is that our comments make no difference whatsoever to this administration.

jason.cre · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 10
gs goodyear wrote:

Your mind is already made up. And it is only your opinion on what state regulators would do. Oh and I like the view of drilling fields, similar to wind farms their beautiful too. 

Its not an opinion, its a fact.  Utah has sold off over half of its state lands.  And its congressional delegation CONTINUES in 2017  to push for federal lands to be sold to private developers in Utah.  It is not conjecture --- this is what is actually happening.

Roy Suggett · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2009 · Points: 6,365

The answer to the above question by gs goodyear is in part, this:  States vary in their desire and ability to protect important places.  Vermont...?...maybe, Utah, I do not think so.  A bigger umbrella with consistent and uniform policies not directly influenced by many private interests seems a better alternative here. 

e-m-p · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2008 · Points: 25

Bump to note that tonight is your last chance to submit a comment on this:

https://www.accessfund.org/take-action/campaigns/keep-fighting-for-bears-ears-our-national-monuments

If you've been meaning to do so but haven't, you still have a few hours to exercise one of the privileges and responsibilities that come with living in a democracy. Maybe don't blow it off...

Wayne Erickson · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2017 · Points: 0
Jonathan Lagoe · · Boulder · Joined Aug 2011 · Points: 5

OK I sat through all of that. Let's accept that it was factual. (Although describing the land grab and ethnic cleansing involved in creating the Navajo reservation as "working with the natives" stuck in my craw a little..) What I understand as the proposition in the video is:

- Old mining claims and drill holes represent some kind of history which locals value.  ( I guess the monster pile of tailings outside of Moab would qualify).

- The fact that such activity has taken place in the distant past disqualifies an area from being designated a National Monument. 

Well by the same logic Yosemite Valley would still be a center for sheep farming and logging. 

Did I miss some other argument in the video?

Fat Dad · · Los Angeles, CA · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 60

The Petroglyph, a publication that describes the Bears Ears designation as "a bunch of millionaires representing billion dollar companies would use their special access to the Obama Administration to call for a monument designation that would cut off access to land and natural resources in one of the poorest counties in the country".  I suppose they don't believe the designation has anything to do with preservation.  Kind of like the argument that global warming is a theory cooked up my environmentalist organizations just to increase their membership.

Not sure why Wayne is posting here.  Just joined one day ago with one post.  Doesn't appear to be  climber.  Why is it only trolls (in addition to the energy industry) appear to oppse the designation?

caesar.salad · · earth · Joined Dec 2012 · Points: 85
Dustin Stotser · · Springfield, MO · Joined May 2014 · Points: 363

I'm not sure how anyone could visit the Petroglyph website and come to the conclusion that they offer anything besides conservative punditry.  A quick visit to the "About The Petroglyph" section provides only it's mission statement "Setting the record straight on wilderness, environmental, political, and recreation focused news in Utah and the Western States" and a list of it's "editors" which includes, cryptically, The Petroglyph itself and one person, a Marjorie Haun.  A quick search of Marjorie Haun brings numerous right leaning "freelance news" articles and the Twitter handle @Reagan_Girl.  Also, none of the articles I read on the petroglyph state the author.  The website appears to be nothing more than her personal conservative blog with the façade of a freelance news source.

Brandon S · · Weehawken, NJ · Joined Jul 2013 · Points: 3

I've seen some conflicting reports but this generally looks like good news (Headline: Zinke won't eliminate any national monuments)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/24/zinke-national-monuments-241988

Rob T · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2006 · Points: 10

I always thought odds of elimination were small. No precedent so it'd likely be years before it made it through the court system. 

He has said that he's recommending a reduction in size, until we know if it's 1% or 99% I don't think we know much more than we did yesterday. 

Roy Suggett · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2009 · Points: 6,365

Sorry, I think the worst scenario possible has the most likely outcome.  Just another reason why more should vote...that is if the ruskies don't steal that vote.  I am in a poor mood! 

Rob T · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2006 · Points: 10

I'm with you Roy. Had to laugh at Zinke's indignant response to the notion that he'd sell them off.  

No, you won't sell them, you'll just let a company trash them(while skipping the required bonds to cover reclamation) so when these cretins spend all their profits, the tax payers are left with an eyesore and a bill. 

J.Kruse · · Las Cruces, NM · Joined Jul 2011 · Points: 95

https://www.eenews.net/assets/2017/08/24/document_gw_09.pdf

Executive summary of the recommendations.  Not sure if there is anywhere to read the full report yet.  

This seems to have some pretty pointed language, especially in the context of my local Monument under review, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks.  I'm interested to see how this turns out, but I don't expect OMDP will remain at it's current size.  Zinke came to Las Cruces earlier this year and spent his time meeting with ranchers, developers, and staff of Steve Pearce who is a big proponent of down sizing.  Seeing as how Trump administration policy making seems to be based on a very simple process (Q: did Obama do it? A: if yes, get rid of it), I imagine we will see a big reduction in acreage.  

I'm a bit torn as the preservationist in me would like to see the Monument stay the way it is, but the lands west of the Rio Grande are so remote and inaccessible I don't think it will have much impact if they are taken out.  I do believe the Organs themselves are worthy of designation as they hold many endemic species, great recreation, and are generally an amazing geologic feature.  There is a lot of luxury real estate development right in to the foothills of the mountains and I'd like to see that limited.  I have talked to lots of folks who have lived here their whole lives and the general feeling is that the designation doesn't change much, but they felt like it was not done in a fair way.  The general western distrust of the federal govt. is strong here.  The fact that a small group of cattle ranchers and special interests can have such sway over a resource that is currently a gift to the whole country sucks, but what else is new.  Follow the money.  I'd guess if the Monument is reduced it will trigger a bunch of slow moving litigation anyway so we will be in limbo.  That's my view from here in southern NM.

Roy Suggett · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2009 · Points: 6,365

Yeah ^^^  all true except "Did Obama OR Clinton do it"   I live in the Grand Staircase.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Post a Reply

Log In to Reply